For Sale -- Mostly Second-Rate Newspapers

The Wall Street Journal ^ | Nov 19, 2005 | John Ellis

[abb]

On Nov. 1, Private Capital Management LP, a large shareholder in numerous newspaper companies, wrote to the management of Knight Ridder asking that the nation's second largest newspaper chain "aggressively pursue the competitive sale of the company." Two days later, two other large shareholders seconded the motion. Shortly thereafter, Knight Ridder announced that it had decided to "explore" alternatives, "including a possible sale of the company."

It is axiomatic on Wall Street that bear markets beget consolidation. The bear market in the newspaper industry should foretell a spate of mergers and acquisitions. But what if there are no buyers? This is the question that looms over Knight Ridder. Companies that might reasonably be expected to jump at the opportunity to acquire Knight Ridder, like Gannett and the New York Times, have expressed zero interest. New media companies -- Yahoo! and Google -- weren't even called for comment. In the end, it was left to a few Wall Street talking heads to announce interest, which they did by insisting that "big private equity firms" would be the likely buyers, if only to acquire the whole at a discount and then sell off the parts for a gain.

This lack of enthusiasm for a company once regarded as a money machine is evidence of how thoroughly the Internet has disrupted media business models. And with broadband now reaching into more than half of U.S. households, disruption has morphed into menace.

Knight Ridder has been publishing mostly second-rate newspapers for as long as anyone can remember. Its strategy has been straightforward: Leverage de facto monopoly newspaper status in individual cities into ownership of the classified advertising business in those communities. With high-speed broadband and wireless access now a fact for most Americans, consumers are no longer at the mercy of second-rate information providers.

[ForGod'sSake]

I would like to ask the someone(s) WHY?

World governance for dummies? A sovereign, strong America, which almost by definition requires a sovereign American people, is probably not amenable to being governed by a world body. Bringing America down a couple of notches, politically and economically, is probably easier than "raising all the boats".

[calrighty]

" Bringing America down a couple of notches, politically and economically, is probably easier than "raising all the boats"."

You have just placed yourself in the top 10% of people
with a brain. I believe this globalist point of view to be dangerous and sinister. Our own President seems to be a willing participant. Just look at the borders(or lack of them, thereof).

[ForGod'sSake]

Our own President seems to be a willing participant.

If one expects world governance in some form is likely, or even possible, what does one do? Especially if a country, such as the US, is in a position to influence, nay, greatly influence the outcome.

For an ol' east Texas country boy the answer seems simple enough. The world economy is taking us down a path we may or may not have chosen on our own but, like it or not, we are the major player in the world and should act accordingly. Prepare to take the lead, willingly or otherwise, because it will ultimately be in our own best interests to be ahead of the curve.

Gotta get some chores done...

FGS

[Criminal Number 18F]

No, that picture's leaning right

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F

[Criminal Number 18F]

Yet they would rather drive these venerable journalistic enterprises into the ground than give up their elitist biases.

Fair enough. I'm cool with that.

d.o.l.

Criminal Number 18F